RECOGNITION OF PlANT BACTERIOLOGY IN TUROPl- 391 



Some days ai^o I received your m.iunilKent volume on the IJaeteria in 

 relation to Plant Diseases. I iiavc- studied it in a preliminary way and with 

 much interest, and find that it contains many points which will be useful 

 even to those who sutler from plant diseases, although they are no[t] 

 bacteriolos;ists as is my case. I intend to give it to one of my students 

 [ ] to thoroughly study it with him ami have him work on some bacterial 

 disease of our garden according to your methods. I think that by this 

 means he will be able to bring quite a useful contribution to your Science. 

 Kindly recommending myself for the second volume and wishing you all 

 the success you so well deserve, Yours truly Hugo de Vries. 



Savastano, Pcglion, and other important European students of 

 bacterial diseases of plants reviewed Smith's volume in scientific 

 journals which accorded the work the highest recognition. 



Henry Kraemer, editor of the American Journal of Pharmacy,^^ 

 wrote: " I have not seen a book in some time that pleases me 

 like your book. It is in my judgment a most needed work and 

 if the other volumes are like this it will be the most important 

 contribution yet made to the study of bacteriology." 



A reviewer in the Plant World '°*' spoke of Smith as " the 

 foremost American student of phytopathological bacteriology'," 

 and in The Nation '"' plant physiologist G. L. Goodale welcomed 

 his volume as " a treatise on the right use of the necessary appli- 

 ances " and methods of investigation for " professional workers " 

 in the " comparatively new field " of " plant pathology and thera- 

 peutics." N. A. Cobb, director of the division of pathology and 

 physiology of the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association's experi- 

 ment station at Honolulu, wrote that he had grown mentally 

 since perusing Smith's " beautiful w^ork on Plant Bacteriology." 

 Oscar Loew of the Imperial University of Japan thanked Smith 

 for his " splendid and comprehensive w^ork." They had been 

 correspondents for many years, both before and after Loew had 

 participated in this country in a tobacco improvement program 

 sponsored by the Department of Agriculture. While his work 

 had been some highly specialized investigations in plant physi- 

 ology, his results had had important bearings on morphology and 



" Published by authority of the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy. 78(2) : 96-98, 

 Feb. 1906, contained a review of Smith's volume. 



^°°8(12): 307, Dec. 1905. Francis E. Lloyd, editor, publisher, and presumably 

 the reviewer. 



^°^ 83(2162) : 493, Dec. 6, 1906. Review was not signed by Dr. Goodale but 

 Smith knew that he had prepared the review. 



